by H.H. the Dalai Lama, translated by Thubten JinpaIn this book the Dalai Lama presents a brief, brilliant presentation of the view of reality in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism.

Published by Wisdom Publications, London, 2009

excerpt:

"The essential point is this: The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it must also beginningless. For were a beginning to the continuum of the luminous and knowing aspect of consciousness posited, we would then have to concede that consciousness arose from a cause that is not commensurate with it, which is untenable. "

Though I have not yet read this particular book and have only leafed through it, I have found that HHDL has a very good knack for explaining even some of the more complex ideas and tenants in a fairly straightforward manner so that not only Buddhists, but also regular everyday people are able to understand. The mark of a great teacher, I suppose. In this way he has done so much to spread dharma to such a wide variety of people according to their capacities. Whether it be concepts such as this, mind training techniques or even some aspects of Lam Rim, he has a great way of simplifying things for those, especially westerners, to whom many of these ideas are somewhat new. I have heard so many say that they were turned on to the dharma from reading one of his books or attending a teaching. Amazing...

On the other hand, I have heard him spend a great deal of time delving into and breaking down one point or one single line of text in order to fully explain it also. Teaching according to the conditions...

The past is but a present memory or condition, the future but a present projection, and the present itself vanishes before it can be grasped.- Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

by H.H. the Dalai Lama, translated by Thubten JinpaIn this book the Dalai Lama presents a brief, brilliant presentation of the view of reality in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism.

Published by Wisdom Publications, London, 2009

excerpt:

"The essential point is this: The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it must also beginningless. For were a beginning to the continuum of the luminous and knowing aspect of consciousness posited, we would then have to concede that consciousness arose from a cause that is not commensurate with it, which is untenable. "

I have run across this line of thought before, and I currently disagree with it for the following reason:

If in this this argument you substitute "1984 Ford Taurus" for consciousness, you come up with an argument that the 1984 Ford Taurus is eternal.

by H.H. the Dalai Lama, translated by Thubten JinpaIn this book the Dalai Lama presents a brief, brilliant presentation of the view of reality in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism.

Published by Wisdom Publications, London, 2009

excerpt:

"The essential point is this: The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it must also beginningless. For were a beginning to the continuum of the luminous and knowing aspect of consciousness posited, we would then have to concede that consciousness arose from a cause that is not commensurate with it, which is untenable. "

I have run across this line of thought before, and I currently disagree with it for the following reason:

If in this this argument you substitute "1984 Ford Taurus" for consciousness, you come up with an argument that the 1984 Ford Taurus is eternal.

This worries me.

Consciousness is not a material object.Material objects characteristically have location and may have mass, velocity, and physical dimensions.

Consciousness is not permanent but it is eternal - beginningless and it never ceases; it continues in its momentary, ever-changing impermanent flow. It is eternal and impermanent.

You might enjoy, A Contemplative View of the Mind. ( Esp. starting at page 182 )

and this audio with Venerable Thubten ChodronWestern Mind and Understanding Buddhism.Covers all the points that westerners find most difficult with the Buddhist teachings, karma and rebirth, beginningless mind.

On the surface it appears to me that impermanent, eternal consciousness is a flat contradiction. That which is eternal is unchanging, that which is unchanging cannot decay, and therefore that which is eternal is permanent, not impermanent.

BFS wrote:"The essential point is this: The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it must also beginningless. For were a beginning to the continuum of the luminous and knowing aspect of consciousness posited, we would then have to concede that consciousness arose from a cause that is not commensurate with it, which is untenable. "

This reasoning has to be investigated as to validity. I would not take this as valid without probing

Since I see my face in the mirror it must have always been there.There has never been a moment when I looked into the mirror and my face has not been there.

Kind regards

Last edited by ground on Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm still probing, albeit independent of counsel or study. Just pondering now and then through the day. If you look a causes and conditions it gets interesting.

As I understand it, mind is an aggregate of various sensations and thought. The sensations and thought are clearly impermanent. I can't think of a single one that does not arise, persist and decay.

Now if consciousness is dependent on mind, then it too is impermanent, and various consciousnesses will arise and pass away with each perception of the mind.

But what if that is not what is meant by consciousness? What if it refers to an underlying capability of sentient beings? Would such a capability be dependent on causes and conditions, for example, being alive?

Then again, what if conscousness refers to an entity? If that entity is permanent and eternal, what differentiates it from a soul?

catmoon wrote:If in this this argument you substitute "1984 Ford Taurus" for consciousness, you come up with an argument that the 1984 Ford Taurus is eternal.

This worries me.

No this is not correct, since you can validly infer that "1984 Ford Taurus" has been produced.

But you cannot validly infer that "consciousness" has been produced because the observer is the observed. But not being able to validly infer (conventional) production because the observer is the observed does not prove the contrary either.

Depends on whether you equate sleep with being unconscious. I would refrain from seeing it that way. At least there are dreams. Sometimes we remember them, some even say that there are dreams we do not remember.

Really this "thinking about" does not lead anywhere except to speculations.

The reasoning above originates from Dignaga. Dignaga was always defending buddhism against realists, materialists and nihilists.If nowadays this reasoning is applied in the buddhist community as a kind of teaching then perhaps because the realists, materialists and nihilists are amongst the buddhists of today.

Depends on whether you equate sleep with being unconscious. I would refrain from seeing it that way. At least there are dreams. Sometimes we remember them, some even say that there are dreams we do not remember.

Really this "thinking about" does not lead anywhere except to speculations.

The reasoning above originates from Dignaga. Dignaga was always defending buddhism against realists, materialists and nihilists.If nowadays this reasoning is applied in the buddhist community as a kind of teaching then perhaps because the realists, materialists and nihilists are amongst the buddhists of today.

Kind Regards

If we stop thinking we are dead in the water. We have been specifically instructed to work things through for ourselves and reject appeals to authority, even the authority of buddha himself. Right?

catmoon wrote:If we stop thinking we are dead in the water. We have been specifically instructed to work things through for ourselves and reject appeals to authority, even the authority of buddha himself. Right?

No, I do not agree. We have been instructed to rely on the teacher and practice what he teaches in order to experience for ourselves.

The Buddha refrained from making ungrounded assertions and answering questions not conducive to liberation. He just taught: Do this and abandon that.

But I have deep respect for the tradition of logic taught by the tradition of the Dalai Lama. And for me the dialectical approach of his tradition is the dominant guideline for understanding the Buddha's teachings.

BFS wrote:"The essential point is this: The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness. It follows, therefore, that it must also beginningless. For were a beginning to the continuum of the luminous and knowing aspect of consciousness posited, we would then have to concede that consciousness arose from a cause that is not commensurate with it, which is untenable. "

This reasoning has to be investigated as to validity. I would not take this as valid without probing

Kind regards

Why wink? There is nothing, absolutely nothing in Buddhism that the practitioner takes on absolute blind faith, and does not investigate. This includes one's own ingrained,mostly ignorant beliefs and views. If a Buddhist teaching does not make sense, we can either set aside for a later time, or simply take as a working hypothesis and have some fun investigating further.